tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post4171088763333955940..comments2023-10-25T02:18:43.690-07:00Comments on Contend Earnestly: Hebrews 10:10-14: RebuttalSeth McBeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-51749544851020324112007-12-23T07:15:00.000-08:002007-12-23T07:15:00.000-08:00Moving on from the Shedd issue (which seems to be ...Moving on from the Shedd issue (which seems to be closed), here's my response as to the issue of whether "Them that are sanctified" = all those for whom the offering was made. (<A HREF="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/12/hebrews-1014-is-them-that-are.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>)<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-25950117651121310272007-12-15T13:25:00.000-08:002007-12-15T13:25:00.000-08:00Seth, if I might, I would go a bit further here in...Seth, if I might, I would go a bit further here into TF's reasoning:<BR/><BR/>TF:<BR/><BR/>First, it is confusion to assert that the legal claims of the law are cancelled with respect to any person, while asserting that such a person is guilty.<BR/><BR/>That this is confusion can be demonstrated in this way:<BR/><BR/>1. Justice demands that only the guilty be condemned.<BR/><BR/>2. Guilt is the result of violation of the law;<BR/><BR/>3. Violation of the law is contravention of the demands of the law;<BR/><BR/>4. If the demands of the law are removed, if it is impossible that they can be contravened;<BR/><BR/>5. If the law's demands cannot be contravened, the law cannot be violated.<BR/><BR/>6. If the law cannot be violated, there can be no guilt.<BR/><BR/>7. If there is no guilt, there can be no basis for judicial punishment.<BR/><BR/>8. Yet, some on the last day will be judged, which proves:<BR/><BR/>a) That they are guilty;<BR/>b) That they have violated the law;<BR/>c) That they have contravened the demands of the law; and<BR/>d) That, as to those people, the demands of the law have not been cancelled, destroyed, or otherwise removed.<BR/><BR/>My response:<BR/><BR/>I go to Scripture:<BR/><BR/>1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. <BR/>1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. <BR/>1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. <BR/>1Jn 5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. <BR/>1Jn 5:5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Now just go along your pathway TF and put it side by side with John's here and also further down to this that he opens up for the Elect and for good reason I would claim:<BR/><BR/>1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. <BR/>1Jn 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. <BR/>1Jn 5:11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. <BR/>1Jn 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. <BR/>1Jn 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. <BR/>1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. <BR/>1Jn 5:15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. <BR/>1Jn 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life--to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. <BR/>1Jn 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. <BR/>1Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. <BR/>1Jn 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. <BR/><BR/><BR/>So, to state it emphatically anew:<BR/><BR/>The Elect: those who "have" Eternal Life, i.e., "Knowing the Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Sent".<BR/><BR/>The reprobate: 1Jn 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. <BR/><BR/>What then might one ask about the reprobate?<BR/><BR/>Again I point to verses here:<BR/><BR/>Job 18:5 "Indeed, the light of the wicked is put out, and the flame of his fire does not shine. <BR/>Job 18:6 The light is dark in his tent, and his lamp above him is put out. <BR/>Job 18:7 His strong steps are shortened, and his own schemes throw him down. <BR/>Job 18:8 For he is cast into a net by his own feet, and he walks on its mesh. <BR/>Job 18:9 A trap seizes him by the heel; a snare lays hold of him. <BR/>Job 18:10 A rope is hidden for him in the ground, a trap for him in the path. <BR/>Job 18:11 Terrors frighten him on every side, and chase him at his heels. <BR/>Job 18:12 His strength is famished, and calamity is ready for his stumbling. <BR/>Job 18:13 It consumes the parts of his skin; the firstborn of death consumes his limbs. <BR/>Job 18:14 He is torn from the tent in which he trusted and is brought to the king of terrors. <BR/>Job 18:15 In his tent dwells that which is none of his; sulfur is scattered over his habitation. <BR/>Job 18:16 His roots dry up beneath, and his branches wither above. <BR/>Job 18:17 His memory perishes from the earth, and he has no name in the street. <BR/>Job 18:18 He is thrust from light into darkness, and driven out of the world. <BR/>Job 18:19 He has no posterity or progeny among his people, and no survivor where he used to live. <BR/>Job 18:20 They of the west are appalled at his day, and horror seizes them of the east. <BR/>Job 18:21 Surely such are the dwellings of the unrighteous, such is the place of him who knows not God." <BR/><BR/>What then is at the "end" of the world for those that are torn from their very tent and brought before the king of terrors, i.e. "the firstborn ""of"" death"?<BR/><BR/>Well, look, see where "death" is thrown and you will know:<BR/><BR/>Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. <BR/>Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. <BR/><BR/>Are we getting somewhere now?<BR/><BR/>Here is clearly who the "firstborn of death" is, the king of terrors, Satan.<BR/><BR/>Here is clearly who the "firstborn "from" death is, the King of Terrors, Jesus Christ:<BR/><BR/>Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. <BR/>Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. <BR/><BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-85938919280268364722007-12-15T12:47:00.000-08:002007-12-15T12:47:00.000-08:00Well TF, actually you took the very words right of...Well TF, <BR/><BR/>actually you took the very words right off my fingers, because that is exactly what I was going to post next but you got ahead of me, not your learned words, which I value as I do DP's, mind you, but these words of yours which I want to associate myself with and most likely will yield as well consternation? We shall see?<BR/><BR/>The Words of TF about DP responding to my words:<BR/><BR/>"This is really the final nail in the coffin for Ponter's position."<BR/><BR/><BR/>TF, Shedd's words shed some light on it for me so that I associate myself with yours in this instance.<BR/><BR/>Shedd as quoted by TF:<BR/><BR/>Provided with that additional context, we can see that when Shedd says: "Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly," (at page 437) he is not speaking as to the extent (as though the atonement extended to every man) but as to the nature (legal claim cancellation) and value (infinite).<BR/><BR/><BR/>I will say emphatically and unequivocally, humbly however that the only way any Elect will be saved is by the removal of the legal claims against us!<BR/><BR/>Now, that begs the question, if God is willing to extend "mercy" triumphing over His Holy and Rightesous "Justice", i.e., the legal claim He has against us in Adam's original sin inherited and our "actual and oft repeated sins", why is there a continuation of this enemy assaulting us day and night, i.e. Satan and his fallen angels, the Beast, the False Prophet, Death and Hades and those whose names are not found in the book of Life?<BR/><BR/>I mean, give me a break, the trials and tribulations of My Loving Father's Hand on my backside is nothing compared to the spiritual wickedness that continues to assault us!<BR/><BR/>So, no, Christ did not die for "all".<BR/><BR/>What the Bible does teach us is two things; one, <BR/><BR/>Mar 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. <BR/>Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. <BR/><BR/>and two,<BR/><BR/>Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. <BR/>Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, <BR/>Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." <BR/><BR/>To the Elect, this is "Good News" that through the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Our Savior Who will save "His" people from their sins the legal claims against us which are as true as the devils taunts to God about them are no longer a barrier between us and Our God, the relationship is renewed with us that was lost in the Garden at the beginning.<BR/><BR/>To the reprobate: this same Gospel message is condemnation.<BR/><BR/>What is interesting to me is, while the demons shudder at these things, the reprobate do not! Cf. Psalms 37 and 73 as an aside.<BR/><BR/>And just so we understand where I am coming from, I am remaining very open for Seth's claims. At this time I am just not there where he has come too. He may be right and we may be wrong. He will have to bring me to where he is now. I will go where he brings me. When I get there "his" way, once there that way, I will know if I am right or not. I do have the Spirit of God. He cannot lie. I do continually! grrrr. In any event, we shall see. I want to have whatever Pride is working in me killed, and if this is the time for such a killing by the hands of Seth, I would it be soon and now as there are a lot of folks alive today who have never once "heard" the Name of Jesus because of the effectual works of the Devil our enemy who God Our Heavenly Father has promised to His Elect these same things when we in the fullness of the times and the fullness of the Power of the Holy Ghost work the Works of God in our generation:<BR/><BR/>Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; <BR/>Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, <BR/>Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." <BR/>Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? <BR/>Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? <BR/><BR/><BR/>And on the other hand, I would hope Seth, being brought back to a soundness of reason, would equally want to be found wrong if he is and repent as I say I am willing to repent if I am found to be wrong.<BR/><BR/>For the Elect to be wrong is a Gift of Faith by the Gift of Grace administered by the Gift of Christ as a Gift of God and the Holy Ghost, the Word of God.<BR/><BR/>Did I get them all? The Five solas?<BR/><BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-10819862737254673282007-12-15T05:53:00.000-08:002007-12-15T05:53:00.000-08:00Michael,It's worse than that.Shedd makes clear tha...Michael,<BR/><BR/>It's worse than that.<BR/><BR/>Shedd makes clear that pages 378-463 are about the nature and value of the atonement, when he says, at the top of page 464:<BR/><BR/>"Having considered the nature and value of Christ's atonement, we are prepared to consider its <I>extent</I>." (emphasis in original)<BR/><BR/>Provided with that additional context, we can see that when Shedd says: "Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly," (at page 437) he is not speaking as to the extent (as though the atonement extended to every man) but as to the nature (legal claim cancellation) and value (infinite).<BR/><BR/>Thus, by the time Shedd explains at page 470 that "Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited," we understand that Shedd means that the atonement (the sacrifice itself) is of infinite intrinsic value, but that the redemption (the purposed application of that atonement) is of particular, limited extent - that particular, limited extent being set by election.<BR/><BR/>Shedd explicitly rejects the "doctrine of the school of Saumer" (aka Amyraldianism) at page 471.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, Shedd, at page 474, explains what he means:<BR/><BR/>"In saying that Christ's atonement is limited in its application, and that redemption is particular, not universal, it is meant that the number of persons to whom it is effectually applied is a fixed and definite number."<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Shedd explains, at page 475:<BR/><BR/>"Although Christ's atonement, in the discussion of its value and sufficiency, can be separated from the intention to apply it, yet in the Divine mind and decree the two things are inseparable."<BR/><BR/>Shedd likewise, on the same page, explains:<BR/><BR/>"The sacrifice of Christ is offererd with the intention that it shall actually be successful in saving human souls from death."<BR/><BR/>Similarly, on the next page, Shedd explains:<BR/><BR/>"The Divine Father, in giving the Divine Son as a sacrifice for sin, simultaneously determined that this sacrifice should be appropriated through faith by a definite number of the human family, so that it might be said that Christ died for this number with the distinct intention that they should be personally saved by this death."<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Shedd, at pages 476-478 proves "That the atonement, in the mind of God, was inseparable from his purpose to apply it to individuals ... ." <BR/><BR/>In the couse of so doing, he states: <BR/><BR/>- "the atonement of Christ ... is not intended to be applied to non-elect men though it is sufficient for them"<BR/><BR/>- "... Christ's atonement is intended for application only to believers" (as, incidentally, I already showed in this debate, with reference to John 3:16)<BR/><BR/>- "The atoning work of Christ in its intended application is no wider than his intercessory work."<BR/><BR/>- And negatively, speaking of the non-elect: "It is logical therefore to conclude that he does not discharge the particular office of priest for them."<BR/><BR/>In addressing objections to limited redemption, at pages 479-89, Shedd rejects Seth's view (and - since Seth seems to have obtained his view from David, we shall presume David's view also) that Christ is the federal head of the same group as Adam (p. 480), instead indicating that "The 'all' in Adam is a larger aggregate than the 'all' in Christ."<BR/><BR/>Likewise, at page 482, Shedd explains that "3. The atonement is sufficent in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and thi sfact should be stated beacuse it is a fact. there are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinte atonement has not been provided. "All things are now ready." Therefore the call to "come" is universal. It is plain, [sic] that the offer of the aontement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy."<BR/><BR/>This is really the final nail in the coffin for Ponter's position.<BR/><BR/>Recall that Ponter had, while admitting that Shedd considered the expiation to have an unlimited, i.e. infinite, intrinsic value, also asserted that Shedd is saying that the expiation has an unlimited extrinsic value.<BR/><BR/>That is clearly not the case. Instead, Shedd's comments regarding the claims of justice being satisfied relate to the instrinsic value of the atonement, as clarified by Shedd himself in the most recent quotation above.<BR/><BR/>But, of course, all this confusion on Ponter's part springs from two facts:<BR/><BR/><B>First, it is confusion to assert that the legal claims of the law are cancelled with respect to any person, while asserting that such a person is guilty.</B><BR/><BR/>That this is confusion can be demonstrated in this way:<BR/><BR/>1. Justice demands that only the guilty be condemned.<BR/><BR/>2. Guilt is the result of violation of the law;<BR/><BR/>3. Violation of the law is contravention of the demands of the law;<BR/><BR/>4. If the demands of the law are removed, if it is impossible that they can be contravened;<BR/><BR/>5. If the law's demands cannot be contravened, the law cannot be violated.<BR/><BR/>6. If the law cannot be violated, there can be no guilt.<BR/><BR/>7. If there is no guilt, there can be no basis for judicial punishment.<BR/><BR/>8. Yet, some on the last day will be judged, which proves:<BR/><BR/>a) That they are guilty;<BR/>b) That they have violated the law;<BR/>c) That they have contravened the demands of the law; and<BR/>d) That, as to those people, the demands of the law have not been cancelled, destroyed, or otherwise removed.<BR/><BR/><B>Second, it is confusion to say that the atonement is effective only for the elect, while asserting that atonement actually cancels the claims of the law for each person</B>.<BR/><BR/>That this is the case can be seen from the fact that if the claims of the law were cancelled for a particular person, that would be <B>an effect</B> of the atonement for that person.<BR/><BR/>In other words, it is confusion to say that the atonement is effective to all while simultaneously clami that it is effective only to some.<BR/><BR/>It is, specifically, the confusion of equivocation.<BR/><BR/>As I originally stated, it may seem to some readers that Shedd is suggesting that the laws claims are actually (not potentially) cancelled for all of humanity, but Shedd makes it very clear that he is referring to the intrinsic value of the atonement, and not an extrinsic effect of the atonement with respect to any particular person, except those for whom it is intended, who Shedd identifies as equal to the elect.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-86507954335680639662007-12-14T20:06:00.000-08:002007-12-14T20:06:00.000-08:00In this comment I want to be "proven" wrong though...In this comment I want to be "proven" wrong though,<BR/><BR/>TF, I am not now convinced that DP will answer you yes or no.<BR/><BR/>Shedd:Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain."<BR/><BR/>the forth following of DP would want any reasonably sound person to answer yes or no and then go from there. Apparently not him.<BR/><BR/>Why the ca-gee-nuss? hmmmm.<BR/><BR/>When I try to get my pea size brain around understanding God the Father's Will in relationship to Christ's Will in relationship to the Sanctification of the Spirit and His "Voice", His Will too, cf 1 Peter 1:2 and turn my brain around and go backwards into Eternity with my thoughts, I don't go very far!<BR/><BR/>Dr. J Sidlow Baxter, most high learned of the "Governor" Spurgeon, said one day he was thinking. He started thinking back in time, he said and into Eternity Past and at some period of time later found himself sick and trembling even though He was thinking of His Master's Son Christ Jesus Our Dear Lord. Nevertheless he became sick and began trembling until the Lord came to him and asked, "Dear Friend", why? I have not created you to think that way, turn around in your thinking, look ahead and "Hope in Me". One day you too will pass and I will be there waiting for you! :)<BR/><BR/>I too found myself sick and trembling. You see I too am a fool and don't learn from another's mistakes so well! "To each his own, his own to each we have sown something for good or ill".<BR/><BR/>I may not like the way DP does it. But he is who he is. I am who I am. You are TF to me, and so it is for DP.<BR/><BR/>It might not be as important to me to know who you are, but when the Holy Ghost comes to me and acknowledges to my spirit that I hear "His" in yours, that's good enough for me!<BR/><BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-71672586845318288122007-12-14T14:32:00.000-08:002007-12-14T14:32:00.000-08:00David:Cheers!When you respond, bear in mind Shedd'...David:<BR/><BR/>Cheers!<BR/><BR/>When you respond, bear in mind Shedd's comment:<BR/><BR/>"<B>When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement</B>, and it is imputed to him by God, <B>it</B> then <B><I>becomes</I> his atonement</B> for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, <B>and</B> then <B>it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt</B>, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience."<BR/><BR/>Once you understand that, you'll be able to see that in the other portion, Shedd is speaking about the demands of the law on humanity in the abstract, and not as to individual people.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-41125440711160866292007-12-14T14:09:00.000-08:002007-12-14T14:09:00.000-08:00I am off now I wont be checking in at CA until ate...I am off now I wont be checking in at CA until ater tomorrow.<BR/><BR/>Its recreational beer drinking for me tonight.<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-12454531918734314382007-12-14T14:07:00.000-08:002007-12-14T14:07:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-51649294449490272302007-12-14T14:04:00.000-08:002007-12-14T14:04:00.000-08:00I'm not asking whether he uses those exact words, ...I'm not asking whether he uses those exact words, but I am looking for a clear, non-evasive answer (preferably "yes" or "no") to the question.<BR/><BR/>I assume that there is nothing loaded about the question. If there is, please explain.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-89734875681295820852007-12-14T14:02:00.000-08:002007-12-14T14:02:00.000-08:00David,I think I fully agree with everything Shedd ...David,<BR/><BR/>I think I fully agree with everything Shedd wrote (or quoted with approval) in Chapter II "Vicarious Atonement" of his "Dogmatic Theology."<BR/><BR/>That said,<BR/><BR/>Let's break this up into bite-sized portions.<BR/><BR/>Shedd says the claims of the law are necessarily cancelled <B>as to a particular person</B> when the atonement is imputed to that particular person.<BR/><BR/>a) Do you agree that Shedd says that, and<BR/>b) Is that your position too?<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-72675604215872913272007-12-14T13:59:00.000-08:002007-12-14T13:59:00.000-08:00TF:He says this: It does not mean that Christ’s vi...TF:<BR/><BR/>He says this: <BR/><BR/><I>It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man</I>; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to <B>the claims of the law upon all mankind</B>, <B>cancels those claims wholly</B>. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that <B>naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims</B>, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact... <BR/><BR/>This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering <B>expiated</B> “the sins of the whole world,” and <B>justice is completely satisfied in reference to them</B>. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily <B>cancelled all legal claims</B>. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, <I>Dogmatic Theology</I>, 2:437, 438. <BR/><BR/><BR/>All mankind. But the application is particular and individual. We agree with Shedd on the applicaiton part. But I do you agree with him in the unlimited part?<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-19881153960546009892007-12-14T13:57:00.000-08:002007-12-14T13:57:00.000-08:00Incidental?Then I have to wonder, does TF agree wi...Incidental?<BR/><BR/>Then I have to wonder, does TF agree with Shedd;s claim that the sins of whole human race were incidentally expiated and the claims of the law against all mankind were incidentally cancelled?<BR/><BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-19314897888701138942007-12-14T13:55:00.000-08:002007-12-14T13:55:00.000-08:00David,Let's break this up into bite-sized portions...David,<BR/><BR/>Let's break this up into bite-sized portions.<BR/><BR/>Shedd says the claims of the law are necessarily cancelled <B>as to a particular person</B> when the atonement is imputed to that particular person.<BR/><BR/>a) Do you agree that Shedd says that, and<BR/>b) Is that your position too?<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-75327033640072287722007-12-14T13:52:00.000-08:002007-12-14T13:52:00.000-08:00TF says:Christ, conceivably, might have died preci...TF says:<BR/>Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain."<BR/><BR/>Likewise, it is explained by Shedd's comment on p. 431 that:<BR/><BR/>"The atoning Mediator can demand upon principles of strict justice, the release from penalty of any sinful man in respect to whom he makes the demand."<BR/><BR/>The first of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood expiation to be incidental to the purpose of Christ's death (since it would be "in vain" but for the work of the Spirit), and the second of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood the expiation to be directed to the relationship between the offeror (Jesus Christ) and the offeree (the god-head), such that Jesus Christ has been given the right to apply the purchased liberty (sufficient for all) to the release of whatever captives he desires.<BR/><BR/>David: Incidental? You are kidding right? I must have missed the part where you cited him saying that the expiation is incidental to the purposes of Christ's death. Shedd:<BR/>This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering <B>expiated</B> “the sins of the whole world,” and <B>justice is completely satisfied in reference to them</B>. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily <B>cancelled all legal claims</B>. <BR/><BR/>David: it cancelled those claims. Thats not just an incidental aspect. It cancelled those claims against all mankind<BR/><BR/>Shedd: The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. <B>When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death</B>; but the <I>whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death</I><BR/>David: Again, expiated, an accomplished reality.<BR/>The expiation was not merely an incidental aspect, TF, Rather, what he means it that had no man been saved, the expiation which was effected would not be changed. <BR/><BR/>TF Quotin Shedd: This further demonstrated by the internal evidence in your first quotation: "Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual."<BR/><BR/>David: Totally agree with him here.<BR/><BR/>TF: Likewise, it is demonstrated by Shedd's comment on the following page (after making a comparison between personal and vicarious atonement), that "When a person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience."<BR/><BR/>David: Again thats fine<BR/>But now: this remains true:<BR/>1) In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily <B>cancels legal claims</B>. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. <I>It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man</I>; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to <B>the claims of the law upon all mankind</B>, <B>cancels those claims wholly</B>. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that <B>naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims</B>, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact... <BR/>This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering <B>expiated</B> “the sins of the whole world,” and <B>justice is completely satisfied in reference to them</B>. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily <B>cancelled all legal claims</B>. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, <I>Dogmatic Theology</I>, 2:437, 438. <BR/>2) VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. <B>When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death</B>; but the <I>whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death</I>. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); <I>but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction</I>. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the " one sacrifice "would have been just the same. Shedd, <I>Dogmatic Theology</I>, 3:418. <BR/>For Shedd, this claims are necessary given the very nature of the expiation itself.<BR/>So, for Shedd, all sin is expiated, and the laws claims against all mankind cancelled. <BR/>Please just don’t tell me this is an incidental idea in Shedd. I am asking you to properly address it. And you need to be honest and admit that it is not the case that Shedd unequivocally disagrees with us.<BR/><BR/>Take care,<BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-33524775638485167852007-12-14T13:39:00.000-08:002007-12-14T13:39:00.000-08:00One final note.David wrote:"On another note tho, a...One final note.<BR/><BR/>David wrote:"On another note tho, are you yet prepared to concede that Heb 10:14 does not sustain your case?"<BR/><BR/>I answer:<BR/><BR/>On the contrary. It's just going to take a while to write a suitably detailed explanation.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-31543150729476163722007-12-14T13:37:00.000-08:002007-12-14T13:37:00.000-08:00David,The portions you quoted are explained by She...David,<BR/><BR/>The portions you quoted are explained by Shedd's comment, at p. 441:<BR/><BR/>"Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain."<BR/><BR/>Likewise, it is explained by Shedd's comment on p. 431 that:<BR/><BR/>"The atoning Mediator can demand upon principles of strict justice, the release from penalty of any sinful man in respect to whom he makes the demand."<BR/><BR/>The first of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood expiation to be incidental to the purpose of Christ's death (since it would be "in vain" but for the work of the Spirit), and the second of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood the expiation to be directed to the relationship between the offeror (Jesus Christ) and the offeree (the god-head), such that Jesus Christ has been given the right to apply the purchased liberty (sufficient for all) to the release of whatever captives he desires.<BR/><BR/>This further demonstrated by the internal evidence in your first quotation: "Consequently, <B>what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual.</B>"<BR/><BR/>Likewise, it is demonstrated by Shedd's comment on the following page (after making a comparison between personal and vicarious atonement), that "When a person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, <B>it then becomes his atonement</B> for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, <B>and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt</B>, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience."<BR/><BR/>Similarly, Shedd is making the same point when he states: "The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); <B>but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction.</B>"<BR/><BR/>Satisfaction relates to sufficiency - blotting out and forgiveness relate to efficacy.<BR/><BR/>Sufficient to all, efficient to the elect.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-64876464820029643632007-12-14T13:06:00.000-08:002007-12-14T13:06:00.000-08:00Seth has directed me to TFs reply.Hey TF, I have t...Seth has directed me to TFs reply.<BR/><BR/>Hey TF, I have to say you are fighting a strawman here.<BR/><BR/>I can agree with near most of all Shedd's qualifications. What is more, specifically, I totally agree with Shedd's desciptions regarding the expiation. <BR/><BR/>But now, once again, you did not directly address what Shedd has said as per the material we've posted. Its fine to keep directing us to Shedd other commments. We will only go, "ahem, yes I agree with that too," or "Well no I dont quite agree with him on that, tho."<BR/><BR/>And remember I have never said that Shedd unequivocally agrees with me. But you did.<BR/><BR/>So once again, you just avert our attention from the quotations we have provided. <BR/><BR/>Shedd: <BR/>1) In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily <B>cancels legal claims</B>. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. <I>It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man</I>; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to <B>the claims of the law upon all mankind</B>, <B>cancels those claims wholly</B>. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that <B>naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims</B>, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact... <BR/><BR/>This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering <B>expiated</B> “the sins of the whole world,” and <B>justice is completely satisfied in reference to them</B>. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily <B>cancelled all legal claims</B>. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, <I>Dogmatic Theology</I>, 2:437, 438. <BR/><BR/>2) VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. <B>When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death</B>; but the <I>whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death</I>. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); <I>but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction</I>. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the " one sacrifice "would have been just the same. Shedd, <I>Dogmatic Theology</I>, 3:418. <BR/><BR/>How can it be that he sin(s) of the whole human race has been expiated, and how can it be that he claims of the law against all mankind have been cancelled?<BR/><BR/>No need to point to where we may or may disagree with Shedd on other aspects, but direct us to an explication of the cited words above. I will not entertain any other Shedd material until you address his theology in these 2 quotations.<BR/><BR/>On another note tho, are you yet prepared to concede that Heb 10:14 does not sustain your case?<BR/><BR/>Btw, I can feel my tone edging up. I am trying to keep it friendly.<BR/><BR/>Take care,<BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-81464090999339602432007-12-14T12:20:00.000-08:002007-12-14T12:20:00.000-08:00I have responded to David's further assertions reg...I have responded to David's further assertions regarding the comments made on my blog in the appropriate place <A HREF="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/12/open-question-to-seth-on-atonement.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Shedd agreed with Owen and Turretin, not with Ponter.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-8566189972105566532007-12-14T11:35:00.000-08:002007-12-14T11:35:00.000-08:00I see that TF has made some sort of attempt to dem...I see that TF has made some sort of attempt to demonstrate that some of us have misunderstood Shedd <I>et al</I>.<BR/><BR/>TF’s reply seems to be this, while Shedd does make some semantic distinction between atonement and redemption, when does speak of unlimited atonement, he is simply speaking of its unlimited intrinsic value.<BR/><BR/>To that we can say a few things. It is completely true that Shedd considered the expiation to have an unlimited, ie infinite, intrinsic value. The problem is, that is not all Shedd is saying. To put it this way, he is also saying that the expiation has an unlimited extrinsic value. But even that does not exhaustively capture his theology.<BR/><BR/>Here are two comments from Shedd which cannot be interpreted as merely and only affirming the expiation's unlimited intrinsic value:<BR/><BR/>1) In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily <B>cancels legal claims</B>. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. <I>It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man</I>; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to <B>the claims of the law upon all mankind</B>, <B>cancels those claims wholly</B>. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that <B>naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims</B>, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact... <BR/><BR/>This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering <B>expiated</B> “the sins of the whole world,” and <B>justice is completely satisfied in reference to them</B>. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily <B>cancelled all legal claims</B>. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, <I>Dogmatic Theology</I>, 2:437, 438. <BR/><BR/>2) VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. <B>When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death</B>; but the <I>whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death</I>. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); <I>but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction</I>. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the " one sacrifice "would have been just the same. Shedd, <I>Dogmatic Theology</I>, 3:418. <BR/><BR/>David: Now, you can say that I am completely misunderstanding Shedd, but until you can give me a credible explanation as to how and why Shedd could say that the sins of the whole human race, of all mankind, has been expiated, and not only expiated, but the claims of the law against all mankind cancelled, I will continue to say, “yes, Shedd believed that the expiation has an infinite intrinsic value, but that is not all he said or taught. He also said that all sin has been expiationed, and that the claims of the law against mankind have been cancelled. You really do have to deal with his actual language at some point in all this.<BR/><BR/>And thus it is not the case that Shedd unequivocally agrees with you. And what is more, it is clear that Shedd is operating by a fundamentally different expiation and substitution model.<BR/><BR/>take care,<BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-27474646379882266932007-12-14T11:15:00.000-08:002007-12-14T11:15:00.000-08:00Hey Bnonn,I really appreciated your post there.A l...Hey Bnonn,<BR/><BR/>I really appreciated your post there.<BR/><BR/>A long time ago I said to a theological opponent: "when you act like a butthead, I act like a butthead." <BR/><BR/>In my opinion this person was acting like an spoilt child. Its always hard not to respond in like manner.<BR/><BR/>Another thing Ive learned, this time from a friend, is that so many act as if they are God's honour police. Thus, discourse is about vindicating God's honour and 'destroying' the one who challenges it, than about have a conversation between Christian brothers, seeking mutual understanding, etc. <BR/><BR/>At times I have tried to maintain a friendly disposition and demeanour. I lost it tho when I saw my comments ripped from here and posted elsewhere without even a note or a request. Its just after that that I made my comment about the argument from 1 Tim 4:10 as being junk. I was pretty agitated then and just wanted to speak my mind. :-)<BR/><BR/>My problems with that <I>expose'</I> post are things like, I was not even asked what I believe. But guesses were made. I was not even asked where I source my beliefs. The connection to Geisler is just absurd. I was doing this long before he published that book. I never read that book until about 4 years after it was published, and then only cos I became aware of some of his historical claims.<BR/><BR/>The 4 point calvinism thing I completely reject.<BR/><BR/>Its also theologically and historically inaccurate. Its claims rely on outdated secondary sources that have essentially circulated an urban myth.<BR/><BR/>At another level the motives are open to challenge. Its as I must be quarantined as if I am some theological infection. That someone feels the need to brand me, of all people, a peon in the great scheme of things. <BR/><BR/>The most profound irony in all this is the ethical dilemma. Here is a man who keeps his identity totally secret from us, and so is totally unaccountable to the people of God, who yets sets himself up as judge over others. That is just so wrong in my opinion. Its scary that it happens on the net, and that "reformed" people do it. This has got to be the most damning in the whole thing.<BR/><BR/>So what can I do about the post? I just dont see any chance of a reasonable dialogue. I have no means to seek a higher court, so to speak... so what is left is but for me to smile and ignore it.<BR/><BR/>.... Actually, no the greatest insult was the claim that TartanA had presented a detailed refutation. That was salt to the wound. :-)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jokes aside...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/>DavidDavid Ponterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10329361749094253372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-13540007328697636262007-12-14T08:24:00.000-08:002007-12-14T08:24:00.000-08:00Seth,I've substantiated my comment as to Shedd and...Seth,<BR/><BR/>I've substantiated my comment as to Shedd and asked you an open question about whether this debate needs to continue,<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/12/open-question-to-seth-on-atonement.html" REL="nofollow">Here</A><BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-76931978657420956282007-12-13T16:13:00.000-08:002007-12-13T16:13:00.000-08:00Bnonn,I can see why you'd feel that way.And I can ...Bnonn,<BR/><BR/>I can see why you'd feel that way.<BR/><BR/>And I can see why my comments can sound a bit hard.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, from here, the perspective is the same. I don't feel like its harsh to say "No, the sky is Blue," even if dozens of folks comment saying that, in their opinion, it is a sort of polka-dot hazel colour.<BR/><BR/>We both see the matter clearly, it would seem, but one side (or both/all) is wrong.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-48934259631740533522007-12-13T16:05:00.000-08:002007-12-13T16:05:00.000-08:00TF—Since we are all professing Christians, and "ou...TF—<BR/><BR/>Since we are all professing Christians, and "out of the heart, the mouth speaks", I think it is important for you to know how your words come across. I am a relatively disinterested third party. I know neither you nor David from a bar of soap, and I strongly disagree with both of you on various points of doctrine (you on limited atonement; David on the extent of God's sovereignty). So I am not really interested in taking sides, and I am not interested in championing one of you or the other. But I am interested in seeing Christ held up and God glorified.<BR/><BR/>This being the case, I'd like to make you aware of the fact that you, like Christian e-pologists, sometimes come across as neither humble nor sincere. What I mean by this is that people who are sincere in their apologetics are doing it because they wish to see errors corrected, truth proclaimed, and souls saved for the glory of God. It <I>should</I> be a humbling enterprise, because we are vessels of God's very word, which is the power of God for salvation. It <I>should</I> be a humbling enterprise because we are not worthy to untie his sandles, far less proclaim his words and be his trusted servants. It <I>should</I> be a humbling enterprise because it <I>should</I> be always looking toward Christ, so that he is glorified, and not ourselves. Now, if we are not sincere in those goals, we will not display any of this humility. And I can say with confidence that <I>no</I> apologist of any kind, no matter what his stature, is completely sincere. The kernel of sin in us always desires to gratify our own pride. We never glorify God as we should. But some people seem to try much harder than others.<BR/><BR/>In cases where we can be confident that those with whom we are debating are already saved, we ought to be even more aware that our conduct is to such that it builds up our brothers, and is to be above reproach in the eyes of both the elect and the world. I don't mean we should conform to the world's standards of etiquette, but I mean that every rebuke should be weighed, every criticism considered, because we are not interested in our own glory, but God's. If I think David is wrong, my natural reaction is to villify him. Indeed, I am a particularly unpleasant person at heart, and can bend my eloquence to serve my malice very effectively. I wish to crow at him, and I wish to write about what an idiot he is, how slow to understand and how stubborn of heart. I wish to compare him unfavorably to myself, and use God's truth as a mechanism for my own glorification, as if by understanding it I am a greater person, or a greater Christian, than he is. I wish to discredit him, and credit myself. I am sure that these wicked desires still evidence themselves in what I write all the time, and that is to my shame.<BR/><BR/>However, maybe because of this, it particularly pains me to see other Christians indulging in that sort of behavior. I must always remind myself that my disagreement with David is important <I>not</I> because I love being right, but because we <I>both</I> love God's word. If I love being right, I will be sure to provoke personal confrontations, and write articles about him on my blog. I will, of course, wish to maintain the appearance of piety, and so I will be passive-aggressive when I can; or openly aggressive when I can find some excuse from Scripture (understand I am not just thinking of you as I write this). Sarcasm and back-handedness will be my chief allies; frankness and openness will not. And, by employing these methods, I will make it difficult for David to remain charitable—both because he is also a sinner whose impulse it is to give as good as he gets, and because it is very hard to respond to sarcasm and passive-aggressive posturing without either seeming smug and superior, or whiney and pathetic. It is even difficult to rebuke such behavior without seeming to sink to the same level. And often, even the most charitable reply which points out this behavior will simply provoke more, and in hindsight seem incendiary.<BR/><BR/>Please understand that I am not saying that you come across this way all the time, or in every way I have described. I am deliberately generalizing about much of the behavior I observe in the apologetics "blogosphere" (I shudder at the word), in the hope that you will see it also and desire to not emulate it. I am not accusing you of being a troll; nor am I vindicating David. But I think you should know that, from time to time, you come across as being more interested in personal one-up-manship than in one-upping God's word. I think it is probably no great revelation to observe that your personality and David's clash. But posting articles like 'Who is David Ponter?' does nothing that I can see to further the cause of Christ. It does nothing to keep you above reproach in the eyes of others. It just comes across as petty rivalry with no relevance to the gospel. You are by no means the worst, obviously. Certain posters on Triablogue spring immediately to mind as being driven by personality rather than love of God. Sound as their theology and good as their arguments may be, a Christian would seldom have warrant to emulate their behavior.<BR/><BR/>I also think that you exacerbate the situation by simply telling David (and Seth) that they have misunderstood Dabney, Shedd, and the others. I have read only a little of these authors on the topic at hand, but it appears quite clear to me, as to Seth and David, that they believed Christ died for all. Several quotes have been given to show this. They are not in arcane language, or cryptic verse; they're in plain English, and they say that Christ died for all. Anyone who can read can see that. Yet you repeatedly say we have misunderstood them, as if they are written in some kind of code, the key to which only you possess. And the fact that you do not substantiate this assertion makes it seem quite smug. I am sure this is contributing to much of the frustration which is evident in this thread. As David says, it is like looking up at a clear blue sky, and having you tell us, nope, we've misunderstood it—it's overcast. Actually, given the number of commentators involved, it is more like looking up at a clear blue sky, down onto green grass, and out at a purple mountain range, and being told that it's overcast, that we're standing in a desert, and that the horizon is empty.<BR/><BR/>I hope you, and others, find this post constructive.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>BnonnDominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-62795661165244263732007-12-13T14:06:00.000-08:002007-12-13T14:06:00.000-08:00Well now, the idiot wants to reclaim this portion ...Well now, the idiot wants to reclaim this portion the floor, Seth permitting me license, seeing we are not on point in the debate, just waiting it out, pondering.<BR/><BR/>David, do you see Amyraut in any of your views? Would you feel you are an Amyraldian?<BR/><BR/>Remember, you are the learned one here and in your blog you did ask us virtual students to ask you things so that we could pass from being idiots in public to being learned as well.<BR/><BR/>It was a direct question. Would you answer it? Yes? No? If yes, what's your answer? If no? Well I will move on!<BR/><BR/>thanks <BR/>michaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-486875804298696342007-12-13T13:06:00.000-08:002007-12-13T13:06:00.000-08:00I'll have to ask Dave Armstrong for the appropriat...I'll have to ask Dave Armstrong for the appropriate comeback to that one.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com